This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

Originally Posted by Adagio

You're simply making excuses for this. Another conservative justificationist in full bloom.

No.Youre confusing reasons with excuses.

Originally Posted by Adagio

You know what? That's tough crap. This is the presidents choice for Def. Sec. He's qualified and they all know it. Just because he doesn't square with the Republicans is beside the point. They didn't win the election. The president did. They aren't going to support anything that Obama wants, so are you expecting him to put in a guy that they want?? Why?

Tough crap eh? Sounds like you want a rubber stamp congress. Politically Hagel is a mess for them. Hes Obama's attempt to have a club to bludgeon any foreign policy criticism as criticism of bi-partisan policy. Its political cover and his incompetence makes it worse. They not only have someone that will be used against them on foreign policy but someone respresenting the party that has already come across like an idiot and a disloyal one at that.

Originally Posted by Adagio

No, Not just the surge. The entire war. It was created on a bed of lies. Hegal reaslised that and stood up against it. They hate him for having a conscience which they clearly lack.

Thats a direct quote. He wasnt talking about the war he was talking about the surge.

Originally Posted by Adagio

No he doesn't. The war was a lie. You're saying that he deserves to be hit because he was right and they were wrong? That war cost over 4,000 American lives. For what?? Hegal has a military background. He knows what it's like to have shrapnel floating in your chest unlike the idiot Cruz who has no idea about war but is intent on re-cycling Joe McCarthy.

Bull****. You make outrageous statements you deserve to get called on them. End of damn story.

Originally Posted by Adagio

That might explain the pathetically low approval rating for congress. And who do you think that low approval is aimed at? The GOP, that's who. Party over country. Identity philosophers. Loyalty to the group over the truth. And I really don't care to hear your tu quoque argument about "they do it too". As most of us learned from our mothers growing up as children....two wrongs don't make a right". Your comment is simply justificationist babble.

Its been dropping for DECADES. It was low teens to single digits under Pelosi. Dont give me party over country when your side wants to spend until the whole damn thing just crashes. Or any number of other issues.

re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

Originally Posted by Perotista

Careful my friend. Talk about one party or the other becoming irrelevant or in this case viable after an bad election loss has abounded for a very long time. This kind of talk hoovered over the Republicans from 1932-52, then IKE struck back. After 1964, this same kind of talk was to be heard all over. After 1974 and Watergate, the Republicans were dead only to rebound nicely with Reagan in 1980. During Reagan came the southern lock and a few books on how the Democrats will never win another presidential election. Now we are back to the Republicans fading away again.

I do agree on Johnson, where does a person, a candidate if you will ran as if he is a fiscal conservative and socially liberal? I like the term classical liberal. That brings to my mind people like John Adams and Ben Franklin. The liberals of their day or what one would term traditional liberal. Progressive thinkers that believed in individual liberty.

That is the direction Gary touches base with. He's not a conservative but does view himself as a Classic Liberal. Whatever he is, he makes a lot of sense on many things. He's very likeable.

As for predicting the demise of the GOP regarding winning national elections, it's different this time. There's a completely different element today that didn't exist before which in their present ideology, they won't be able to adjust to. The GOP's message doesn't resonate with minorities and that's who won the election. A coalition of minorities; blacks, latino's, women, gays, Asians, youth, and a sufficient number of whites, voted for Obama and the Dems. They picked up Senate seats and got 1 million more votes for the House candidates. This coalition of minorities combines to be a majority, and unless the GOP is able to understand why they aren't liked...they'll continue to lose. These minority groups know very well that they aren't liked by Republicans. They don't like blacks ( never have) they try to kill the Dream Act and see Latino's as illegals, they vote for transvaginal ultra sounds for a woman seeking an abortion, they vote against equal pay for women, they fight against planned parenthood, contraception, a womens right to her own body, they oppose same sex marriage, and hate gays in the military. They've fought against blacks, latino's, women, and gays. Why would any of those groups align themselves with people that hate them and can't identify with them at all?

The GOP seems to think that if they just get their message across, they'll win these people over. It's all in the messaging and the right candidate to deliver it. They don't even stop to think that it's the message itself that doesn't work. And that message is the core identity to the GOP. It's embedded into conservatism which is the ideology itself. Unless their ideology changes, they've lost these groups forever, and they aren't about to change the ideology, because part of what makes them conservative is they fight to maintain existing institutions. To give up on conservatism is to admit defeat which they'll never do. But the ideology itself doesn't relate to minorities and they are the demographic power in the country now. Wasn't like that before. This is different.

re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

Originally Posted by Jack Hays

BHO has his full second term to try to achieve for one day what GWB achieved every day.

Yes. The country all wish we could go back to the Bush years. I seem to recall him exiting with about a 27% approval rating. He wasn't even invited to the Republican convention. Nobody wanted to be associated with him.

re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

The "Great Bush Recession" is actually the end of a Democrat mandated bubble that was built under Clinton. HUD policies forced the GSEs to conform to a quota system and to help HUD along Clinton replaced all the Executives at Fannie and Freddie from 1993-1998.

Your 718,000 number is absolute bunk.

Your " jobs lost " number doesn't take into account the shrinking job market, under employment, people who have dropped off the books, etc

You know all the things you would have mentioned if a Republican was in office. You didn't mention the massive structural debt, thats increasing , rising dependence, rising cost for Federal programs, rising welfare cost, food stamps.

Oh yea I can see the comparison to Reagan already.

You didn'nt mention the massive record reserves the banks are holding or the fact they're getting paid interest on those reserves since 2008.

You libs go on about the bailouts but are too limited to see the banks are getting a sweeter deal under Obama than any other President.

You go on about WallStreet repeating the manufactured eat the rich narrative with out admitting to the Feds policies which are pumping billions into Wall Street.

Your whole post is disengenous and its why you libs constantly get walked a over when you come here.

Your 718,000 number is absolute bunk.

No it isn't.

Your " jobs lost " number doesn't take into account the shrinking job market, under employment, people who have dropped off the books, etc

My "jobs lost" numbers are actual factual numbers. You offer vague factors such as shrinking job market, under employment. and people who dropped off the books. (Does that include people that started their own businesses?) They're vague because you have no hard numbers to factually compare with those I presented.

You libs go on about the bailouts but are too limited to see the banks are getting a sweeter deal under Obama than any other President.

Not bad for a socialist. The Dow closed over 14,000 today. In fact it's the highest it's been in 5 years. If Obama's a socialist he's really bad at it.

You go on about WallStreet repeating the manufactured eat the rich narrative with out admitting to the Feds policies which are pumping billions into Wall Street.

Then with all that money, you'd have to agree. They can afford to pay a little more in taxes. Look at how they've benifted. The poor rich have it so tough. I hear Phil Mikelson may have to quit the pro golf tour because his taxes are too high for him to make it on a $60Million a year earnings. Poor Phil. What's the PGA going to do without him? I suspect they'll give the prize money to somebody else.

Your entire response to this post is classic. Throw as many nebulous, empty accusations as you can at the wall in hopes that something sticks. It's like McCain and his never ending quest on Bengahzi. He's so troubled. He want's answers to a never ending series of questions. He wants Obama to prove that he isn't hiding something. In other words...Prove a negative. Which of course can't ever be done. The problem is...Obama knows that. He'll be polite of course. But he'll put an end to it. How does that relate to this? No matter how many figures you see, you'll never be satisfied. You'll do everything you can think of to try and discredit the facts. The comparisons are easy to make and the people made it. Nobody wants a return to the Bush years.

re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

Originally Posted by OpportunityCost

No.Youre confusing reasons with excuses.

Tough crap eh? Sounds like you want a rubber stamp congress. Politically Hagel is a mess for them. Hes Obama's attempt to have a club to bludgeon any foreign policy criticism as criticism of bi-partisan policy. Its political cover and his incompetence makes it worse. They not only have someone that will be used against them on foreign policy but someone respresenting the party that has already come across like an idiot and a disloyal one at that.

Thats a direct quote. He wasnt talking about the war he was talking about the surge.

Bull****. You make outrageous statements you deserve to get called on them. End of damn story.

Its been dropping for DECADES. It was low teens to single digits under Pelosi. Dont give me party over country when your side wants to spend until the whole damn thing just crashes. Or any number of other issues.

Sounds like you want a rubber stamp congress.

I haven't seen one of those since Bush. But no. I just want a congress that doesn't filibuster a nominee for a cabinet post. This is the first time in our history that's ever been done. And it's all political when we have the nations business to attend to. The American people have no time for John McCain or the Republicans grudges. It's petty BS. Gee...what' so different about Obama than the 43 other presidents, that the Republicans refuse to cooperate on anything?

Hes Obama's attempt to have a club to bludgeon any foreign policy criticism as criticism of bi-partisan policy.

That's your own cynical view. You may recall we had Robert Gates as Sec of Defense. A Republican appointed by Bush. So...now with Hagel, it's a club?? Obama isn't concerned over your criticism of any foreign policy. He's more trusted than the Republicans on that front as well as all the others.

Its political cover and his incompetence makes it worse.

Oh yeah. Real incompetence. Not too bad on that bin Laden thing though, you must admit. And his Sec. of State is leaving with a 62% approval rating and a clear shot at the presidency in 14. I'd say that in the eyes of the people, he's done pretty well.

They not only have someone that will be used against them on foreign policy but someone respresenting the party that has already come across like an idiot and a disloyal one at that.

I realize that kind of cynicism is part of being a conservative. You guys see plots and conspiracy's everywhere. But in reality...it's pretty juvenile. Obama doesn't ever have to run again. His running for election days are over and in his career he's only lost once. The very first time. He's in full governing mode now, and the Sec of Defense doesn't make policy. The president does with the Sec of State. Defense implements that policy. So your argument about Hagel influencing foreign policy is dumb. That's Kerry's job. The conservatives are paying a huge price for their stupidity, and that's going to be felt in 14.

Thats a direct quote. He wasnt talking about the war he was talking about the surge.

Hagel was against the whole war and the Republicans know it. Do you think he's going to say the war is wrong, but the "surge" now that's really sweet? There wasn't anything he had good to say about the war, including McCains beloved surge. Is the surge something to salvage out of a war built on lies? Do we say....we launched a war sending 4,000 Americans to die and another 30,000 without limbs all based on lies. But that surge thing....wow. That was really cool.Well bravo

Bull****. You make outrageous statements you deserve to get called on them. End of damn story.

Really?? Well what part of what I said is BS?? There's nothing outrageous about saying the war was built on lies. That's the truth. The outrageous thing was that we did it. And it could happen Because the entire country was still on shock from 9/11. We let our emotions get the best of us and we believed what we were told. Not all of us, but enough. And oops! Gee folks, guess we were wrong about that WMD thing...but while we're here, lets change the middle east into a Jefferson democracy. There ya go. See how easy that was?

Its been dropping for DECADES. It was low teens to single digits under Pelosi. Dont give me party over country when your side wants to spend until the whole damn thing just crashes. Or any number of other issues.

No. Not like this. When congress falls under 10% approval something really bad is going on. Do you honestly think that the country doesn't see what's going on here? Didn't the election sink into your head yet? You're putting party over country. And don't begin to tell me about my side wanting to spend until the thing crashes. My side won the election because of what YOUR side did to the country. We've seen your policies in action and they don't work. Elections have consequences and putting the man into his job is real. Your complaint about spending is theoretical and subjective and not demonstrably true. Do you not see the difference here? Hagel needs to be at the job. That's a tangible asset that we are holding up for political payback. And you want to shift to some nondemonstrable argument over spending?? Get real.

re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

Originally Posted by Adagio

Yes. The country all wish we could go back to the Bush years. I seem to recall him exiting with about a 27% approval rating. He wasn't even invited to the Republican convention. Nobody wanted to be associated with him.

And yet BHO has yet to come close to GWB's record of economic performance.

"It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

Originally Posted by Adagio

I haven't seen one of those since Bush. But no. I just want a congress that doesn't filibuster a nominee for a cabinet post. This is the first time in our history that's ever been done. And it's all political when we have the nations business to attend to. The American people have no time for John McCain or the Republicans grudges. It's petty BS. Gee...what' so different about Obama than the 43 other presidents, that the Republicans refuse to cooperate on anything?

You new liberal inductees are really getting old quick on the Boooooshhhhhh mantra. Speaking of which you must have missed all the hold ups with Bush appointees from 2000 to 2008. Political obstruction isnt anything new. Please stop pretending it is.

Originally Posted by Adagio

That's your own cynical view. You may recall we had Robert Gates as Sec of Defense. A Republican appointed by Bush. So...now with Hagel, it's a club?? Obama isn't concerned over your criticism of any foreign policy. He's more trusted than the Republicans on that front as well as all the others.

You don't understand bi-partisan apointees as cover to partisan policy do you? You're pretty new to this whole political manuevering aren't you? Hagel is a republican apointee that doesn't agree with republican policy and his every agreement with Obama's policy decisions will be called "bi-partisan". Hagel will be used as a political tool. He's going to be used to screw over his own party. I wouldn't approve his nomination either.

Originally Posted by Adagio

Oh yeah. Real incompetence. Not too bad on that bin Laden thing though, you must admit. And his Sec. of State is leaving with a 62% approval rating and a clear shot at the presidency in 14. I'd say that in the eyes of the people, he's done pretty well.

Sigh, I was saying Hagel is incompetent, not Obama.

Originally Posted by Adagio

I realize that kind of cynicism is part of being a conservative. You guys see plots and conspiracy's everywhere. But in reality...it's pretty juvenile. Obama doesn't ever have to run again. His running for election days are over and in his career he's only lost once. The very first time. He's in full governing mode now, and the Sec of Defense doesn't make policy. The president does with the Sec of State. Defense implements that policy. So your argument about Hagel influencing foreign policy is dumb. That's Kerry's job. The conservatives are paying a huge price for their stupidity, and that's going to be felt in 14.

Nah its more like having a political maturity over the age of 12 and believing people act in their own self interest, because they DO. . Obama is not in full governing mode, hes in legacy mode. Dont play stupid with me, hes a Chicago political operative: they cement party political power, they act to enrich their supporters and then they act in the interest of those that elect them.

Originally Posted by Adagio

Hagel was against the whole war and the Republicans know it. Do you think he's going to say the war is wrong, but the "surge" now that's really sweet? There wasn't anything he had good to say about the war, including McCains beloved surge. Is the surge something to salvage out of a war built on lies? Do we say....we launched a war sending 4,000 Americans to die and another 30,000 without limbs all based on lies. But that surge thing....wow. That was really cool.Well bravo

Stop posting moronic ****, that quote was directly attribted to the surge.

Originally Posted by Adagio

Really?? Well what part of what I said is BS?? There's nothing outrageous about saying the war was built on lies. That's the truth. The outrageous thing was that we did it. And it could happen Because the entire country was still on shock from 9/11. We let our emotions get the best of us and we believed what we were told. Not all of us, but enough. And oops! Gee folks, guess we were wrong about that WMD thing...but while we're here, lets change the middle east into a Jefferson democracy. There ya go. See how easy that was?

Yeah like there werent 10 other reasons for military action against Iraq. So how do you feel about action in Afghanistan? (hint: Its a TRAP!)

Originally Posted by Adagio

No. Not like this. When congress falls under 10% approval something really bad is going on. Do you honestly think that the country doesn't see what's going on here? Didn't the election sink into your head yet? You're putting party over country. And don't begin to tell me about my side wanting to spend until the thing crashes. My side won the election because of what YOUR side did to the country. We've seen your policies in action and they don't work. Elections have consequences and putting the man into his job is real. Your complaint about spending is theoretical and subjective and not demonstrably true. Do you not see the difference here? Hagel needs to be at the job. That's a tangible asset that we are holding up for political payback. And you want to shift to some nondemonstrable argument over spending?? Get real.

Hagel wasnt a political asset in liberal eyes until he trashed republican policy, your comments are laughable, more hilarious is that you think anyone buys your bull****.
Yep, Bush spending policies were dumb, so the solution was to triple that. Yup, seems to be working.